coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Szentendre.
5.  On 29 August 1996 A.P. filed an action for divorce and child custody against the applicant before the Pest Central District Court. She further indicated in the motion that she wished to settle the division of matrimonial property in separate legal proceedings.
6.  On 6 July 1999 the plaintiff requested the District Court to establish her ownership of a common real estate and to divide the matrimonial property.
7.  After having held several hearings, the District Court delivered a partial judgment on 14 April 2000, dissolving the parties’ marriage, deciding about the child’s placement and regulating the applicant’s access rights. On appeal the Budapest Regional Court upheld the first instance judgment on 6 February 2001.
8.  As regards the division of matrimonial property, the District Court delivered its judgment on 24 November 2004, which was partly modified on appeal by the Budapest Regional Court on 24 May 2005.
9.  Despite the final judgment regulating the applicant’s access rights (see paragraph 7 above), the mother failed to comply with the arrangements, therefore preventing the applicant from seeing his son.
10.  On 16 April 2002 the applicant brought an action before the Budapest II/III District Court, requesting the modification of his child’s placement. Moreover, he requested joint exercise of his parental rights related to the management of his child’s property. He claimed that the mother had not acted in the child’s best interest when concluding an exchange agreement concerning a real estate in the child’s property, which had been approved by the competent guardianship authority on 9 July 2001.
11.  On 28 May 2003 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s action. On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment on 29 January 2004.
4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Tel-Aviv.
5.  On 19 October 1998 Mr S. instituted proceedings in the Kirovskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk against the applicant and the company V. seeking division of inheritance.
6.  On 20 October 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Babushkinskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk seeking endorsement of her right to the inheritance.
7.  On 26 February 1999 the applicant lodged with the Kirovskyy District Court a counterclaim against Mr S.
8.  On 21 August 1999 the Babushkinskiy Court transferred the applicant’s case to the Kirovskyy Court.
9.  On 25 October 1999 the Kirovskyy Court joined the claims lodged on 19 and 20 October 1998.
10.  On 28 September 2000 the court rejected the request of Mr S. to order the attachment of the disputed property. On 30 October 2000 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court quashed that decision and remitted the matter to the first instance court for fresh consideration.
11.  On 12 December 2000 the court refused to order the attachment. That decision was not appealed against.
12.  On 2 June 2004 the applicant requested the court to order the attachment of the disputed property.
13.  On 25 January 2005 the court rejected that request.
14.  On 18 April 2005 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the matter to the first instance court for fresh consideration, the outcome of which is unknown.
15.  On 25 November 2009 the court endorsed the friendly settlement concluded by the parties.
16.  Fifty-nine hearings were scheduled in the applicant’s case. According to the Government, the applicant was responsible for the adjournment of twenty-one hearings, while other parties in the case were responsible for further thirty-one adjournments.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Kharkiv.
5.  On 2 September 1999 the police instituted criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of unlawful making and storage of a firearm. Throughout the major part of the proceedings the applicant was on a written undertaking not to abscond.
6.  On 4 October 1999 the case was transferred to the Zhovtnevyy District Court of Kharkiv (“District Court”), which on 21 February 2000 delivered a judgment. On 21 March 2000 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeal”) quashed it and remitted the case for additional investigations.
7.  Following the completion of additional investigations, on 4 September 2000 the case was referred to the District Court, which on 25 November 2005 found the applicant guilty as charged, sentenced him to three years of imprisonment and exempted him from the sentence as the charges against him became time-barred. On 25 February 2006 the Court of Appeal upheld the above judgment.
8.  On 22 June 2006 and 22 February 2007 respectively, the Supreme Court rejected, as unsubstantiated, the applicant’s and the prosecutor’s appeals in cassation against the above decisions.
9.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the applicant was three times found guilty of contempt of court and repeatedly challenged the judges and the court’s jurisdiction, which entailed adjournments of the hearings and an eight-month delay in the proceedings. Eight hearings were adjourned due to the applicant’s failure to appear and seven hearings due to his and the witnesses’ failure to appear. The applicant disagreed stating that he had not been duly informed of those hearings. Fifteen hearings were adjourned due to the witnesses’ or expert’s failure to appear, absence of the judges or upon the prosecutor’s request. On several occasions the courts applied compulsory summonses on the witnesses failing to appear. Two expert examinations were ordered and lasted for about three months.
6.  The applicant was born in 1965 and actually lives in Bitola (“the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”).
7.  On 28 February 2005 he was arrested by the Greek police and criminal proceedings were brought against him for drug related offences.
8.  On 10 March 2006 the Thessaloniki First Instance Criminal Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to 15 years of imprisonment and a fine of 30,000 euros (EUR) (judgment no. 345/2006).
9.  On the same date the applicant lodged an appeal with the Thessaloniki Criminal Court of Appeal challenging the first instance court’s findings and its evaluation of the evidence.
10.  The hearing, which was originally set for 10 December 2008, was subsequently adjourned to 27 November 2009 due to lawyers’ and judicial officials’ strike.
11.  By judgment dated 27 November 2009 the Court of Appeal reduced the applicant’s sentence to fourteen years of imprisonment and a fine of 20,000 EUR (judgment nos. 1887-88/2009). According to the case file, no appeal on points of law was lodged challenging this judgment.
12.  On 2 March 2011 the applicant was deported to “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”.
5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Tunceli.
6.  On 8 April 2003 the applicant made a request to the Governorship of Tunceli to be informed about the living conditions in his village, which he claimed to have had to leave in 1994 for security reasons. On 14 April 2003 the Governorship of Tunceli informed the applicant that he could move back to his village and that he would receive services and financial support from the Governorship for doing so. Subsequently, on 18 June 2003 the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement (Bayındırlık ve İskan Bakanlığı) conducted an on-site inspection and issued a report which indicated that the houses in the village were old and ruined.
7.  On 4 December 2003 the applicant, together with several other residents of the village, applied to the Ministry of the Interior through the Governorship of Tunceli requesting compensation for the damage to his property that had occurred over the ten years he had had to live away from his village.
8.  On 7 January 2004 the Governorship of Tunceli submitted a report to the Ministry of the Interior. The report stated that the residents had left the village of their own accord in 1994 and that the Administration had no liability regarding the damage to the property. It indicated that, in any event, there was no record or title deed to prove the applicant’s ownership of property in the village. The report was later approved by the Ministry of the Interior.
9.  On 3 March 2004 the applicant instituted compensation proceedings in the Malatya Administrative Court against the Ministry of the Interior. He requested a total of 150,000,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 90,000 euros (EUR) at the time), claiming that he had not been allowed to go back to his village for nine years and that the administration was indirectly liable for the damage that had occurred over that time. The applicant also requested legal aid to cover the court fees.
10.  On 16 March 2004 the Malatya Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s request for legal aid, merely stating that he did not fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 465 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
11.  On 22 March 2004 the court notified the applicant that he was required to pay a court fee of TRL 2,035,100,000 (approximately EUR 1,200) and a postal fee of TRL 40,000,000 (approximately EUR 25) within thirty days. The applicant objected to the court’s decision regarding his request for legal aid. On 31 May 2004 the Administrative Court rejected his objection. The court stated that its decisions regarding legal aid were final.
12.  On 2 June 2004 the court once more informed the applicant that he had to pay the required fees within thirty days in order to continue the proceedings and that the proceedings would be discontinued if he failed to do so.
13.  On 15 July 2004 the Administrative Court discontinued the proceedings as the applicant had not paid the court fees.
5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Izmir.
6.  On an unspecified date in 2006 she initiated administrative proceedings against the Ege University Hospital, claiming compensation. She indicated, inter alia, that the doctors at the said hospital had not acted diligently during the numerous reconstructive operations she had undergone, which had resulted in severe complications affecting her ears and eyes. The applicant sought a total of 205,000 Turkish liras (TRY) (136,000 euros (EUR) at the time) in compensation for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, submitting medical records in support of her claims. The applicant also applied for legal aid for the required court fees, presenting a certificate from the office of the mayor of the neighbourhood (muhtar) in which she lived attesting to her poverty.
7.  On 26 January 2006 the Izmir Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s legal aid application, after having stated that pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, an application for legal aid must be supported by proof that the case is well-founded and that the claimant does not have the means to pay the required court fees.
8.  On 6 February 2006 the court informed the applicant that she was required to pay a total of TRY 2,767 (approximately EUR 1,800 at the time) in court fees within thirty days in order for the proceedings to be continued.
9.  Subsequently, on 22 March 2006 the applicant applied for legal aid again and submitted additional documents proving her poor financial situation, including certificates from the Çiğli Directorate of Land Registration, the Revenue Department and the Directorate of Income, which indicated respectively that she did not own any immovable property, had no records in the tax roll and had no income. She also argued that her case was well-founded. On 29 March 2006 her application was rejected once more.
10.  On 17 April 2006 the applicant was warned for the second time that she was required pay the required fees within thirty days in order for the proceedings to be continued.
11.  On 14 June 2006 the Izmir Administrative Court decided to discontinue the compensation proceedings because the applicant had not paid the necessary court fees. That decision was served on the applicant on 29 June 2006.
5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Yerevan.
6.  The applicant is a Jehovah’s Witness. From 1997 he attended various Jehovah’s Witnesses religious services.
7.  On 31 January 1997 the applicant was registered as a person liable for military service with the Shahumyan Military Commissariat. Because the applicant was studying at the university, his military service was postponed.
8.  On 23 September 2002 the applicant received notice to appear at the military commissariat to report for military service.
9.  On the same date the applicant wrote a letter to the Malatia-Sebastia District Military Commissariat, stating that he would not report for military service and requesting that his case be sent to the Prosecutor’s Office. The applicant also informed the General Prosecutor of Armenia in writing that he refused to perform military service because of his religious beliefs but was willing to perform alternative civilian service.
10.  On 2 October 2002 the Shahumyan Military Commissar wrote to the relevant police station about the applicant’s refusal to report for military service, asking that he be forcibly brought to the military commissariat.
11.  On 17 October 2002 the applicant made a statement at the police station, explaining that he refused to perform military service because of his religious beliefs but was willing to perform alternative civilian service.
12.  By a letter of 8 November 2002 the Shengavit District Prosecutor’s Office of Yerevan informed the applicant that he would face criminal charges if he failed to report for military service.
13.  On 4 March 2003 criminal proceedings were instituted under Article 75 of the Criminal Code on account of the applicant’s draft evasion.
14.  On 18 March 2003 the applicant was questioned at the Shengavit District Prosecutor’s Office of Yerevan. He once again submitted that he was refusing to serve in the army for religious reasons but was prepared to perform alternative civilian service.
15.  On the same date the Shengavit District Court of Yerevan ordered that the applicant be detained on remand.
16.  On 29 April 2003 the Shengavirt District Court of Yerevan found the applicant guilty of draft evasion and sentenced him to two years in prison.
17.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal.
18.  On 24 June 2003 the Criminal Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the District Court.
19.  On 3 July 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal, arguing, inter alia, that his conviction violated his rights guaranteed by Article 9 of the Convention.
20.  On 25 July 2003 the Court of Cassation upheld the applicant’s conviction.
21.  On 28 August 2003 the applicant was released on parole after having served five months and ten days of his sentence.
5.  The applicant was born in 1987 and lives in Van.
6.  In 2008, during his military service, the applicant was disbanded from the army as he was diagnosed with a psychotic illness by the Van Military Hospital.
7.  Subsequently, on 7 October 2008 he initiated compensation proceedings, claiming that he had become ill during his military service as a result of the degrading treatment he had been subjected to in the army. He claimed that he had been healthy before and that the Ministry of Defence had failed to provide medical treatment for his condition. The applicant requested a total of 150,000 Turkish liras (TRY) (approximately 80,000 euros (EUR) at the time) in both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, submitting the medical records from the Van Military Hospital in support of his claims. He also requested legal aid for the court fees, presenting a certificate from the office of the headman (muhtar) attesting to his poverty.
8.  On 28 October 2008 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s legal aid request, after having stated that pursuant to the Code on Civil Procedure, a legal aid request must be supported by proof that the case is well-founded and that the plaintiff does not have the means to pay the required court fees. The court concluded that the requirements were not met in the applicant’s case.
9.  On 31 October 2008 the court informed the applicant that he was to pay a total of TRY 2,384 (approximately EUR 1,300) in court fees within thirty days for the proceedings to be continued.
10.  On 4 February 2009 the Supreme Military Administrative Court decided to discontinue the compensation proceedings because the applicant had not paid the necessary court fees.
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Athens.
5.  On 4 March 1999 criminal complaints in rem were brought with the Athens First Instance Prosecutor by the Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences for fraud, forgery and misappropriation of property related offences.
6.  On 5 July 2004 charges were brought against the applicant for the abovementioned offences.
7.  With indictment no. 2284/2005 of the Athens Prosecutor of Appeal the applicant and seventeen other defendants were referred to trial. The case was set for hearing on 21 November 2005.
8.  For the period between 21 November 2005 and 6 June 2007, when the first instance proceedings were concluded, the Athens First Instance Criminal Court held two hundred and nine hearings. During this period ninety four witnesses were examined and more than one thousand and hundred documents were read.
9.   By a judgment of 6 June 2007 the Athens First Instance Criminal Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to sixteen years of imprisonment (judgment no. 2444/2007).
10.  On the same date the applicant lodged an appeal with the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal challenging the court’s findings and its evaluation of the evidence.
11.  On 4 November 2009 judgment no. 2444/2007 was finalised and a written copy of the decision and the minutes of the proceedings was available.
12.  The appeal hearing, which was originally set for 19 November 2010, was subsequently adjourned to 21 February 2011, as two of the co-defendants of the applicant were admitted to a public hospital for treatment.
13.  As it transpires from the case file, these proceedings are still pending.
5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk.
6.  The applicant was the Vice-President, founder and majority shareholder of the Bank Slavyansky (hereinafter – the Bank). On 2 February 2000 the State Tax Police instituted criminal proceedings into tax evasion by the management of the Bank and on 10 March 2000 the State Tax Administration instituted another set of criminal proceedings for abuse of office by the management of the Bank (for more details see Feldman v. Ukraine, nos. 76556/01 and 38779/04, 8 April 2010).
7.  On 13 March 2000 the applicant was arrested and from that date he was detained as a criminal suspect until his conviction by the Artemivskiy Court on 19 April 2002.
8.  On 4 May 2000 the applicant asked the investigator to arrange a visit by the Rabbi of the Dnipropetrovsk Region. On the same date the rabbi also made a request to see the applicant for religious conversations.
9.  On 6 May 2000 the investigator refused the requests on the ground that a meeting between the applicant and the rabbi might impair the establishment of truth in the case.
10.  On 19 May 2000 the applicant asked the investigator to allow him visits by his wife and sister. The request was refused on same day on the ground that such a visit might impair the establishment of truth in the case.
11.  On 7 and 11 August 2000 the applicant’s sister requested leave to visit the applicant. By letters of 15 August 2000 these requests were refused, on the ground that the investigation was pending and the visit might impair the establishment of truth in the case.
12.  On 9 August 2000 the applicant’s lawyer asked the investigator to transfer the applicant to Dnipropetrovsk to attend his father’s funeral. On 11 August 2000 the investigator refused this request on the ground that domestic law did not provide for escorting suspects for such purposes.
4.  The applicant was born in 1977 in Sivas.
5.  On 6 May 1998 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation.
6.  On 9 May 1998 he was brought before the public prosecutor and investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court, who ordered his pre-trial detention.
7.  On 11 May 1998 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant, charging him with membership of an illegal organisation.
8.  On 14 July 1998 due to the factual and legal connection between the cases, the court decided to joint the applicant’s case to other proceedings, involving seven accused (no. 1998/2).
9.  On the same day the applicant was released pending trial.
10.  On 29 July 2000 a change took place in the judges sitting as a bench at the Istanbul State Security Court and therefore, the next hearing was scheduled on 7 September 2000.
11.  On 16 November 2000 the hearing was postponed to 20 February 2001 due the change in the assignment of judges at the trial court.
12.  On 20 February 2001 the applicant was summoned to appear before the court in order to make his supplementary submissions for his defence, in view of a possible alteration of the offence he was charged with.
13.  On 10 May 2001 the court observed that the registered writ having sent to the applicant, returned to the case file without a delivery.
14.  On 30 November 2001 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an additional bill of indictment, charging the applicant with using explosives.
15.  From the date of 10 May 2001 to 24 May 2007, despite the authorities’ efforts to have summoned the applicant, his whereabouts could not be established. During that period, the court ordered the Avcılar Police Department to make an enquiry to the applicant’s family about his non‑appearance. Subsequently, the court was informed that the applicant had gone abroad to study.
16.  The trial court invited the prosecutor’s office to transmit the arrest warrant against the applicant to the customs with a view to securing his appearance before the court once he entered the country.
17.  Following a constitutional amendment, State Security Courts were abolished and the applicant’s case was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court.
18.  On 6 November 2007, in his defence submissions to the court, the applicant’s lawyer claimed that the applicant had already been tried by another chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court on the basis of the same facts and requested that the matter be examined further.
19.  On 3 April 2008 the Istanbul Assize Court ordered the case file of the proceedings in question to verify the reason for the applicant’s previous conviction.
20.  On 24 February 2009 the court ruled that the criminal proceedings be discontinued on the ground that the prosecution was time-barred. On the same day, the applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal against the judgment.
21.  According to the submissions in the case file, the proceedings are currently pending before the Court of Cassation.